This will be brief as it is less an argument I want to make and more an idea I’m hoping to sound out.

I have previously argued that the Real is absolutely inexperienceable by definition, that is, the Real, in order to be experienced, would have to be linguistified, the very act of which would render the event in the symbolic and negate its essence as the Real. I wonder, however if emotions which are “beyond words” or “inexpressible” constitute experiences with the Real. This then leads me to the question: if by even stating that one is in a love so great that it can’t be expressed or terrified in ways that are unimaginable (H.P. Lovecraft, why do I think that here? If so, then perhaps Lovecraft is a better Lacanian than Hitchcock.) is one not in some way symbolizing the potential Real in the event. This would leave Real emotions as only those one is unaware they are experiencing.

I think, ultimately, I find myself back at the doctrinaire answer that the Real cannot be experienced. Sound off in the comments below.

Like this:

Related

Good problem here. The more I think about it, the more my position on this changes. At first, I subscribed to the entry level view that the Real is what is under the surface, it is the traumatic Thing that will rear its head, one way or another, and erupt into the Symbolic and Imaginary.

Then, I shifted to the view you outline here, the view that the Real is a structural blind spot, a negative space that is orbited, always missed, and unavailable to subjectivity. This Real qua void or gap is what underwrites reality and sense making. However, the Symbolic, by offering a “frame” for reality, is what we actually deal with. The Real is pure negativity. Will’s post “What is the Real?” is enlightening on this point.

Now, my view has shifted to something like a synthesis of those two views, and it has everything to do with wordless, Gnostic, or synergistic experiences. Can the Real be thought of as “the fountainhead” of the Symbolic?

This is what I argued against all the time in Pomo last Spring, so apologies to those that deserve it, you know who you are.

Essentially, isn’t the Real precisely the intersection between the Symbolic and the traumatic Thing? This intersection is partial and temporary, just a momentary glitch, but there it is. An inexpressible emotion, jouissance for example, or its opposite, nirvana, has a shorthand.

Yes, I agree with that. The Real is a blind spot, key point being that, as you said, it is *structural.*

Of course it’s unhelpful the way that Zizek blurs the line between these two different definitions — those being that the Real is either (1) experienceable or (2) not experienceable. (Then again, it’s difficult enough to avoid that mistake: same with object a; how does one avoid equating object a with an actual object without having always to say ‘the object that stands-in for object a’?).